maternity leave and travel at 27 weeks

So two questions -

first - I work at a company in California who has less than 50
employees so its doesn't look like I fall into the FMLA for maternity
leave... anyone know of any other act that covers companies with less
than 50 employees? I don't care about paid maternity leave, but I
don't want to lose my job as I'd like to return after three months.

second, my husband and I had planned to go to England and Greece for
two weeks in June, but I will be around 27 weeks at that point and I'm
not sure whether it will be a good idea or not. Anyone have any
experience going on a vacation in the third trimester? Is it a bad
idea?

wrote:
So two questions -

first - I work at a company in California who has less than 50
employees so its doesn't look like I fall into the FMLA for maternity
leave... anyone know of any other act that covers companies with less
than 50 employees? I don't care about paid maternity leave, but I
don't want to lose my job as I'd like to return after three months.


I don't know anything about California law, but is it possible there's a
short-term disability provision that applies to pregnancies?

Clisby

You probably should talk to your HR department and see exactly what you
qualify for.

As for traveling in the third trimester, I went to Disneyworld when I was 28
weeks pregnant. Not exactly the best time I have ever had since it was hot
and I had to do a lot of walking, but it was also doable. You probably
should expect to take a lot of breaks and do what you feel like you can.
But, as far as traveling, there shouldn't be any restrictions as long as
your doctor doesn't have you on any restrictions.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)
I'm Just a Raggedy Ann in a Barbie Doll World...

wrote in message
om...
So two questions -

first - I work at a company in California who has less than 50
employees so its doesn't look like I fall into the FMLA for maternity
leave... anyone know of any other act that covers companies with less
than 50 employees? I don't care about paid maternity leave, but I
don't want to lose my job as I'd like to return after three months.

second, my husband and I had planned to go to England and Greece for
two weeks in June, but I will be around 27 weeks at that point and I'm
not sure whether it will be a good idea or not. Anyone have any
experience going on a vacation in the third trimester? Is it a bad
idea?

wrote in message
om...
So two questions -

first - I work at a company in California who has less than 50
employees so its doesn't look like I fall into the FMLA for maternity
leave... anyone know of any other act that covers companies with less
than 50 employees? I don't care about paid maternity leave, but I
don't want to lose my job as I'd like to return after three months.

second, my husband and I had planned to go to England and Greece for
two weeks in June, but I will be around 27 weeks at that point and I'm
not sure whether it will be a good idea or not. Anyone have any
experience going on a vacation in the third trimester? Is it a bad
idea?

the california family rights act also only covers those with 50 or more
employees. go here to learn mo
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Statutes/cfra.asp

at hrtools.com it says that california state law allows up to 16 weeks, but
who knows if it's accurate. you may need to call an employment and labor
attorney and simply ask what state law covers. if you haven't spoken to
your employer about your leave yet, i would definitely get the facts first.
especially if your office doesn't have a specific written policy on leave.

as for travel, talk to your doctor about it. there are risks for sitting so
long for developing a bloodclot, but only your doctor can give you the best
answer.

rsitter
mother of megan, 10, riley, 1, and chloe due in 5 weeks.

wrote in message
om...
second, my husband and I had planned to go to England and Greece for
two weeks in June, but I will be around 27 weeks at that point and I'm
not sure whether it will be a good idea or not. Anyone have any
experience going on a vacation in the third trimester? Is it a bad
idea?

I think it depends on where you are and how you plan to get there. You'll
need to check the airlines and cruise ships or whatever you'll be using to
see if they take women in their third trimester. You don't want to be left
behind at the gate.

"Sue" wrote
As for traveling in the third trimester, I went to Disneyworld when I was
28
weeks pregnant. Not exactly the best time I have ever had since it was hot
and I had to do a lot of walking, but it was also doable.

I'm 28 weeks now. You won't know how you feel until you get to that point- I
thought I'd be feeling a bit better, but I would not be comfortable
travelling now- my stomach is bigger than I thought it would be at this
point, based on how long it took me to show, and also my morning sickness is
coming back. I had morning sickness early in my pregnancy, I wouldn;t think
you'd suddenly start having it at this point if you didn't earlier though...
if you have always felt pretty good in your pregnancy chances are you;d do
ok to travel, if your doctor oks it.

wrote in message
om...
So two questions -

first - I work at a company in California who has less than 50
employees so its doesn't look like I fall into the FMLA for maternity
leave... anyone know of any other act that covers companies with less
than 50 employees? I don't care about paid maternity leave, but I
don't want to lose my job as I'd like to return after three months.

second, my husband and I had planned to go to England and Greece for
two weeks in June, but I will be around 27 weeks at that point and I'm
not sure whether it will be a good idea or not. Anyone have any
experience going on a vacation in the third trimester? Is it a bad
idea?

I'd investigate travel insurance (medical) just incase you need some while
your away otherwise it could be one very expensive holiday, and talk to your
Dr.
Alissa

I dont' really know any specifics, but I know California has a new law
taking effect June 1, I think allowing for paid leave, maybe 80%? Not
sure of the parameters of company size, etc, but I know something in
that area is changing beginning of June, because we're bummed we'll be
missing it by about 5 weeks! Grrr!

-Karen, mom to Henry 3 1/2 and someone due 4/24/04-

first - I work at a company in California who has less than 50
employees so its doesn't look like I fall into the FMLA for maternity
leave... anyone know of any other act that covers companies with less
than 50 employees? I don't care about paid maternity leave, but I
don't want to lose my job as I'd like to return after three months.

I believe -- though it's been more than 3 years since I checked -- that
California's state law that is essentially equivalent to the FMLA covers
employers with at least *25* employees. So if your company has that many, you
should be covered.

Beyond that, there isn't really any legal protection. What leave you get is
dependent on your employer's written policies, if any, or on what you are able
to negotiate with your boss(es). Since you aren't asking for *paid* leave,
your employer may be more than willing to give you a longer-than-average time
off without losing your job, but obviously it depends on what your job is and
how valued you are.

BTW, although there's no particular medical reason not to go on vacation at 27
weeks, you might want to save whatever vacation time and pay you're entitled to
for use in place of an unpaid maternity leave!

Holly
Mom to Camden, 3yo
EDD #2 6/8/04

I dont' really know any specifics, but I know California has a new law
taking effect June 1, I think allowing for paid leave, maybe 80%? Not
sure of the parameters of company size, etc, but I know something in
that area is changing beginning of June, because we're bummed we'll be
missing it by about 5 weeks! Grrr!

-Karen, mom to Henry 3 1/2 and someone due 4/24/04-


You don't need to miss it, Karen! (Or at least, you don't if you're working --
I thought you were a SAHM?) The law actually took effect January 1 (and that's
when the new payroll deduction for it started), but you cannot make a claim
until July 1. The thing is, your baby doesn't have to be *born* after July 1
in order for you to make a claim -- you are allowed to claim the benefit at any
time during the baby's first year.

The deal is, it's a new provision for disability insurance payments. It's got
nothing to do with guaranteeing your job will still be there after a leave, but
new parents who take an unpaid leave are now entitled to 6 weeks of payments
from the SDI system (it's a percentage of your salary, with cutoffs at a
certain point so that most well-paid people find it replaces around half of
their ordinary paycheck) in addition to the 6-8 weeks a new mother could
previously claim as a disability benefit.

So if you take a leave from your job beginning at the end of April, you can get
paid from the old disability system for the first 6 weeks (8 if you have a
c-section) after the birth. That gets you to about July 1 -- or very close,
anyway -- at which point you can claim the new family leave benefit for the
subsequent 6 weeks. Voila, 12 weeks of partially-paid leave.

The one year thing also makes it possible for a new mother to take paid
vacation time or other paid time off from her job for part of her leave time,
and claim the family benefit for an additional period during which her company
doesn't pay her. So it's a lot more flexible than the old disability insurance
scheme. And the benefits can be claimed by fathers as well -- I think even
both parents can get the benefit for the same baby, as long as both parents
were employed and thus paying into the system.

Holly
Mom to Camden, 3yo
EDD #2 6/8/04